On this snowy March 25 morning I only ask one thing. Can we get some Global Warming up in here? I just got off the phone with TVA about turning up the CO2. Let's get some of that coal smoking. And to all tree huggers. Don't be hypocrites. Go outside now and pull that satanic power meter off your houses.

On this snowy March 25 morning I only ask one thing. Can we get some Global Warming up in here? I just got off the phone with TVA about turning up the CO2. Let's get some of that coal smoking.And to all tree huggers. Don't be hypocrites. Go outside now and pull that satanic power meter off your houses.

Good one maybe you can get kyle to engineer that for you. It was able to engineer the Auto Ind. into bankruptcy.

<quoted text>If your politicians say a tax is the only way to save civilization and save billions of lives, then you can be sure there's no real problem. Greed is universal but climate change mitigation has never been tested..<quoted text>Taxes divert resources from private enterprise to the government. High taxes stunt private economies and expand government power..<quoted text>Climate is expensive, storms, floods and droughts have always happened. There's no way to tell how much climate change is man made and how much is natural without experimental tests..<quoted text>I use fossil fuel; doesn't that make me represent oil companies? The customer is as much the market as the producer.Do dividends count?.<quoted text>Nobody is paid to post here; wake up!

Of course, everything you say is wrong once again.

The LACK of AGW/CC mitigation is being tested right now. People like you recommend emitting carbon into the atmosphere without restraint. Your selfishness is making us all part of the experiment, however.

A revenue-neutral carbon tax removes ZERO money from the economy & adds ZERO to the cost of overnment. It's a pigouvian tax that takes from high carbon emitters & gives to low carbon emitters.

Consider a rising, stiff tax at the sale or production of fossil fuels. This might not be the best way to disburse it, but it'd certainly be possible to distribute ALL of it equally to every legal US resident, with half shares to up to 2 children.

The governet already has tax collectors & computers to disburse money (by check or electronic deposit), so additional costs would be negligible. Most people actually receive more money that they pay out.

No need for subsidies for clean energy or need to pick out a successful Solyndra. Customers, & the market, would decide.

If you're a heavy carbon emitter, you pay thru the nose. If you're a light carbon emitter, you get free money.

The POINT is not that storms, floods, droughts & other extreme weather events have never happened in the past. The POINT is that they're becoming more & more common with AGW/CC. We've already seen increases, & they'll continue to worsen this century.

There more certainly ARE paid shills all over the internet. This article has appeared in multiple places, with multiple hosts:

.<quoted text>Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found for climate change mitigation..<quoted text>I don't want to be part of your prototype climate change mitigation experiment; consent is part of ethical science. I want to be in the control group that emits CO2 ad lib..<quoted text>The issue is simple, adapting to climate works and no species or technology has ever demonstrated climate change mitigation..<quoted text>When you can tell me what standard would make you change your mind; then you've got a rational argument. I've already said, show me a compelling experiment that shows either man made climate change or climate change mitigation, then I'll change my views.

Actually, I don't want to be a part of YOUR climate change experiment. You're recommending we add carbon to the atmosphere without restraint.

The fact that we're already seeing changes predicted by theory is verification that the theory is correct. I don't want to be a part of the experiment you're forcing on me.

After all, humans are releasing CO2 ~20,000 times faster than natural processes release it. We are completely overwhelming natural processes. Hopefully that doesn't mean the ice sheets will break up 20,000 times faster.

Of course, everything you say is wrong once again. The LACK of AGW/CC mitigation is being tested right now. People like you recommend emitting carbon into the atmosphere without restraint. Your selfishness is making us all part of the experiment, however.

We're also not doing an experiment to restrict Rock music, to see if that would effect global climate temperature. Experiments are pre-planned and controlled, that's why our fossil fuel use can't be called an experiment.

"An experiment is a orderly procedure carried out with the goal of verifying, falsifying, or establishing the validity of a hypothesis. Experiments provide insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated. Experiments vary greatly in their goal and scale, but always rely on repeatable procedure and logical analysis of the results."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment

Most global warming alarmists don't understand what experiments are and how they are used in science to verify theories; that's why they shouldn't decide science policy.

.

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

A revenue-neutral carbon tax removes ZERO money from the economy & adds ZERO to the cost of overnment. It's a pigouvian tax that takes from high carbon emitters & gives to low carbon emitters. Consider a rising, stiff tax at the sale or production of fossil fuels. This might not be the best way to disburse it, but it'd certainly be possible to distribute ALL of it equally to every legal US resident, with half shares to up to 2 children. The governet already has tax collectors & computers to disburse money (by check or electronic deposit), so additional costs would be negligible. Most people actually receive more money that they pay out. No need for subsidies for clean energy or need to pick out a successful Solyndra. Customers, & the market, would decide. If you're a heavy carbon emitter, you pay thru the nose. If you're a light carbon emitter, you get free money.

Taxes harm the people by depriving them of wealth; that's why they should only be used to fund vital government interests. A "revenue-neutral" tax doesn't fund anything, it just redistributes wealth. The poster quoted above seems to want socialism and climate is the excuse.

.

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

The POINT is not that storms, floods, droughts & other extreme weather events have never happened in the past. The POINT is that they're becoming more & more common with AGW/CC. We've already seen increases, & they'll continue to worsen this century.

Storms, floods, drought and other extreme weather events have happened throughout the past. Global warming alarmists don't understand history or science.

.

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

There more certainly ARE paid shills all over the internet. This article has appeared in multiple places, with multiple hosts:[URL deleted]

If you think I'm a paid shill, you're delusional. Nobody would pay me to write this simple common sense criticism.

<quoted text>We're also not doing an experiment to restrict Rock music, to see if that would effect global climate temperature. Experiments are pre-planned and controlled, that's why our fossil fuel use can't be called an experiment."An experiment is a orderly procedure carried out with the goal of verifying, falsifying, or establishing the validity of a hypothesis. Experiments provide insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated. Experiments vary greatly in their goal and scale, but always rely on repeatable procedure and logical analysis of the results."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExperimentMost global warming alarmists don't understand what experiments are and how they are used in science to verify theories; that's why they shouldn't decide science policy..<quoted text>Taxes harm the people by depriving them of wealth; that's why they should only be used to fund vital government interests. A "revenue-neutral" tax doesn't fund anything, it just redistributes wealth. The poster quoted above seems to want socialism and climate is the excuse..<quoted text>Storms, floods, drought and other extreme weather events have happened throughout the past. Global warming alarmists don't understand history or science..<quoted text>If you think I'm a paid shill, you're delusional. Nobody would pay me to write this simple common sense criticism.

Actually, I don't want to be a part of YOUR climate change experiment. You're recommending we add carbon to the atmosphere without restraint.

HSL is in luck, I'm not a scientists conducting a climate experiment. There's never been an experiment on adding CO2 to the atmosphere and measuring its effect; that's the problem with climate change mitigation.

.

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

The fact that we're already seeing changes predicted by theory is verification that the theory is correct.

Coincidence isn't causality. Without an experimental test, we'll never be able to distinguish the difference between natural CO2 emissions and human emissions.

.

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

I don't want to be a part of the experiment you're forcing on me. After all, humans are releasing CO2 ~20,000 times faster than natural processes release it. We are completely overwhelming natural processes. Hopefully that doesn't mean the ice sheets will break up 20,000 times faster.

HSL doesn't know what an experiment is; that explains his fear. I recommend learning how the scientific method works then applying that knowledge to public policy.

<quoted text>HSL is in luck, I'm not a scientists conducting a climate experiment. There's never been an experiment on adding CO2 to the atmosphere and measuring its effect; that's the problem with climate change mitigation..<quoted text>Coincidence isn't causality. Without an experimental test, we'll never be able to distinguish the difference between natural CO2 emissions and human emissions..<quoted text>HSL doesn't know what an experiment is; that explains his fear. I recommend learning how the scientific method works then applying that knowledge to public policy.

There's never been a man intentionally dropped from space to see if he survives, oddly it's a simply stupid as your "point".

<quoted text>HSL is in luck, I'm not a scientists conducting a climate experiment. There's never been an experiment on adding CO2 to the atmosphere and measuring its effect; that's the problem with climate change mitigation.

Because you are not of science, you don't understand the climate science and you post to the world such nonsense.You repeat what's not true as you have for many years.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Coincidence isn't causality. Without an experimental test, we'll never be able to distinguish the difference between natural CO2 emissions and human emissions.

The reality is not what you post to the world. You are not aware of the science.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>HSL doesn't know what an experiment is; that explains his fear.

Actually, you are describing your own fault. You misrepresent the reality of AGW.Your brain must have shrunk to a tiny one after repeating lies for years and years.

Because you are not of science, you don't understand the climate science and you post to the world such nonsense. You repeat what's not true as you have for many years. The reality is not what you post to the world. You are not aware of the science. Actually, you are describing your own fault. You misrepresent the reality of AGW. Your brain must have shrunk to a tiny one after repeating lies for years and years.

Why do you have a problem with noting the lack of experimental tests for climate change mitigation? I'm no scientist but I can see there are no experimental tests that show climate change mitigation is possible or that it won't do more harm than good.

I'm able to make my arguments without discussing other poster's brain size. My arguments are based on the issue, not ad hominem fallacies.

You go ahead and believe whatever you like, make your case a convincingly as possible. I'll do the same and let others decide who to believe.

There's never been a man intentionally dropped from space to see if he survives, oddly it's as simply stupid as your "point".

I don't see what that has to do with climate change mitigation. Is Bushwhacker proposing 'gravity mitigation'?

I've always believed gravity is one of the most dangerous forces in the universe. 20,000 Americans die from falls and slips each year.http://hspsupplyinc.com/stats.htm

We adapt to gravity, learn to look where we're going and how to lift heavy loads with our legs instead of with our backs. We'll learn to adapt to climate change too. There is no antigravity magic or climate change mitigation.

<quoted text>Why do you have a problem with noting the lack of experimental tests for climate change mitigation? I'm no scientist but I can see there are no experimental tests that show climate change mitigation is possible or that it won't do more harm than good.I'm able to make my arguments without discussing other poster's brain size. My arguments are based on the issue, not ad hominem fallacies.You go ahead and believe whatever you like, make your case a convincingly as possible. I'll do the same and let others decide who to believe.

LOL. There's an insurmountable gap between scientists and you.

You don't agree with scientists because their work does not encourage you to burn uncontrolled and limitless quantities of fossil fuel. The future of humanity is threatened by your position of uncontrolled and limitless use of fossil fuel.

You misrepresent people like me by using the word "believe." My science understanding is not something you could ever enjoy.

Who to listen to for science? The scientists. Definitely, not to you or what you believe.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.